• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations
    1. However, these considerations lead one back to the second part of Mr Bloomfield's passage, set out above. If GMAC was going to make an advance with a high LTV, it needed to ensure that it had properly investigated and verified the matters of central importance. In my judgment, it failed to do this in two major respects, which have to be considered together.
      (1) It failed to make enquiry or investigation in respect of the debts that had not been disclosed. I do not accept the arguments put forward by Mr Foskett and Mr Bloomfield to justify this failure. The practice of placing total reliance on the Experian checks meant that GMAC was either unaware of or unconcerned by the significant discrepancies between what those checks showed and what the Borrower had disclosed. Those discrepancies, both taken by themselves and in conjunction with other matters such as the issues concerning the Borrower's income, raised a significant question as to the Borrower's honesty. To answer, as Mr Bloomfield effectively does, that honesty is of no concern to a lender provided there is a sound credit history is to have insufficient regard to the obvious risk that dishonest statements of one's means, for the purpose of procuring greater financial accommodation than would be forthcoming if one told the truth, will lead to borrowers over-extending themselves and defaulting on their excessive liabilities.

      (2) It failed to make enquiry or investigation into the Borrower's income. Despite what I have said about GMAC's business model, I do not consider that GMAC was reasonably entitled to proceed with such a high-LTV transaction in the manner it did. First, I am not persuaded that GMAC is correct to have thought that its own policies required only an informal telephone check to confirm the fact of twelve months' self-employment. Section 9.4 of its Lending Policy would have required 24 months' accounts. Section 10.1, which states that only high-risk cases will be selected for full verification checks, adds the qualification: "(unless Self-Certified or Self-Declared loans)". Although GMAC treated the application as being neither self-certified nor self-declared, it was in substance one or the other, as the only information regarding the Borrower's income was his own assertion in the application form. Second, and in any event, the discrepancies regarding the Borrower's stated income and regarding his liabilities, as set out above, made it obviously imprudent to make no further enquiries regarding his income. The other points arising out of the application, as mentioned above, though minor in themselves, would reasonably have confirmed the need for proper enquiry into the Borrower's financial position.
    2. On the basis of the evidence before me, I infer that, if GMAC had made proper enquiries as to the Borrower's financial position, it would have found that he was unable to verify his declared income or to give satisfactory explanation for his inconsistent statements of earnings or his failure to give proper disclosure of his liabilities. The probability is that GMAC would have concluded that the Borrower's income was of the order of his original statement, namely £85,000, and that it was insufficient to justify the loan that he sought. Further, the reasonable conclusion in the circumstances would have been that the Borrower was dishonest. In those circumstances, GMAC would not have made the advance to the Borrower.
    3. Accordingly, if I had found Countrywide liable, I should have found that GMAC was contributorily negligent. Both Countrywide's negligence and GMAC's contributory negligence would have caused the entirety of GMAC's loss, in the sense that the loss would not have been suffered were it not for the negligence or the contributory negligence as the case may be. Having regard to what I regard as the comparatively egregious nature of GMAC's lack of care, I should have made a deduction of 60% of the entire loss. If the entire loss were taken as £65,960.76 (see paragraph 57 above), the resulting figure would be £26,384.30. As that figure would be less than the full measure of recoverable damages, judgment would have been in that lower amount.

    ------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
    So looks like this could be one of the first judgments for irresponsible lending?????

    and confirms that the courts will look at the lenders underwriting procedures...what a bloody relief something is looking up.
    Last edited by jumper999; 9th January 2012, 15:44:PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

      Banks Blame Countrywide for U.K. Mortgage Losses in 97 Suits - Businessweek

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

        http://www.mortgagefinancegazette.co...lender-beware/

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

          Judge Hits Out at Buy to Let Lender’s Poor Underwriting | Property118.com

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations


            some more info

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

              http://www.pla.org.uk/__data/assets/.../TrustCase.pdf

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

                get the point made about Blemain/Cheshire and ther FSA. Has anyone found case law where Blemain have been sucessfuly challeged on the variable interest clause? or successfully challenged on adding insurance premiums when insurance already in place.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

                  Hi guys,

                  this is my first post here and would like to thank jumper999 and others for the helpful research carried out and the advice given. I hope jumper is still around and the others are still around.

                  Like most of you im also a victim of the blemain bandits. My 2nd charge loan was taken out on 2007 stating at the top ‘regulated by the consumer credit act of 1974’. Ive also been a victim of unnecessary insurance charges of £2500+, unfair penalties, arrear charges, undisclosed commission charges etc.

                  So far ive managed to get my SAR which i received but limited to the basic bones rather than the information requested. They are not willing to disclose any commission paid or the underwriting sheet as it doesn’t fall under the SAR. So will write back to the bandits with the OFT/CCA provisions for the information to be disclosed. Any help on the matter would be appreciated.

                  Also as jumper999 stated blemain/blemain finance were registered trade names under their license with the OFT in 2011 but were providing loans with the names prior to registration. In my case I don’t think the FSA route is applicable as my loan agreements states ‘regulated by the consumer credit act of 1974’. According to OFT:
                  https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...I0of1-8j4rs2qQ

                  2.1 The three legislative provisions in the Act most directly applicable to the
                  OFT's consideration of trading names are:
                  Section 24 – which states that a standard licence authorises the
                  licensee to carry on a business under the name or names specified in
                  the licence, but not under any other name

                  2.2 In accordance with section 39(2), a licensee who carries on business
                  under a name not specified in the licence commits an offence. Any
                  licensee found to have committed such an offence may be
                  prosecuted by the OFT or its regulatory partners in Local Authority
                  Trading Standards Services.

                  I spoke to OFT who are unable to give individual advice?!? (why on earth they still here) They did however confirm that a traders can only trade under the names which they have registered. I hope to seek further help and clarification on the matter.

                  Thanks guys

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

                    Having taken your line of enquiry right through to the General Counsel of the OFT about another sub-prime lender and told the OFT will do feck-all about it despite resounding evidence of considerable breaches of these aforesaid sections of the Act of Parliament by that company for years and years before they actually entered their trading names on their licence - in fact their main name they used was actually licenced to a completely different company by the OFT at the same time, I wish you luck. The OFT are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.


                    But I've not finished with them quite yet

                    A1
                    Seek your own legal advice, I am not trained in legal matters, just give my opinion from my own personal experience.

                    I am an original Cabot Fan Club member and proud of it.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

                      Originally posted by andrew1 View Post
                      Having taken your line of enquiry right through to the General Counsel of the OFT about another sub-prime lender and told the OFT will do feck-all about it despite resounding evidence of considerable breaches of these aforesaid sections of the Act of Parliament by that company for years and years before they actually entered their trading names on their licence - in fact their main name they used was actually licenced to a completely different company by the OFT at the same time, I wish you luck. The OFT are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.


                      But I've not finished with them quite yet

                      A1

                      Agreed ......and seconded!!

                      Sparkie

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

                        My word just caught my eye on the thread I started.

                        Well I have not posted as much as I would like to have...so much going on with everything...but I can say is that I have a trial set with Blemain on the 18 & 19 Feb 13.....and I am trying to sort matters out with them prior to that but they are making life overly complicated....no matter as one way or the other things will get sorted out.

                        I instructed solicitors to try and negotiate with Blemain to try and deal with my possession claim...so far Blemains sols...who are now currently called Cobbetts....thats the third set of sols they have changed since they issued proceedings against me in May 2011.

                        I have written asking them how much money they want me to pay to clear my arrears on top of the contractual payments...they refuse to tell me unless I complete an I & E Form with them over the phone. I told them I will not do this until I know how much they want....so am in a catch 22 position at the mo. So I have written a very strong letter to Blemain and sent a copy to the sols Cobbetts....and told them if they do not reply to my questions then this matter will be dealt with at court.

                        All I can see is Blemain adding and racking up their costs which stand at approx £10k'ish....and are deliberately making matters worse....they are not treating me fairly and never have....and all this will be bought to the courts attention if this matter goes that far.

                        I have asked for a complete breakdown of their costs and the recent FSA fine that Cheshire received should only add more weight to my arguments. All I want them to do is add the arrears, and their costs to the loan...and stay the possession claim.....but they are not budging....not that I am surprised....so I am still having to hammer away.....not easy...but as usual I am not giving up either.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

                          IN THE COUNTY COURT CLAIM No:

                          BETWEEN:
                          BLEMAIN FINANCE LIMITED
                          Claimant
                          and
                          (1) MR
                          (2) MRS
                          Defendants
                          DRAFT ORDER
                          UPON the First Defendant taking no active part in these proceedings
                          AND UPON the Claimant and the Second Defendant having agreed the terms set out herein
                          AND UPON the Claimant and the Second Defendant jointly requesting that the Court do make this Order
                          IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
                          1. The Defendants do give the Claimant possession of
                          2. This order is not to be enforced so long as the Defendants pay the Claimant the unpaid instalments under the mortgage of £7,998.24 by the payments set out below, in addition to the current instalments under the mortgage.
                          3. The money claim be adjourned generally with liberty to the Claimant to restore.
                          4. The Defendants do pay the costs of the claim, to be added to the security.

                          Payment required
                          £33.00 per month (in addition to the current instalments under the mortgage), the first instalment being paid on or before 20 May 2012.

                          ……………………….. …………………….
                          Cantor Law Limited

                          5th Floor Bracken House

                          Charles Street

                          Manchester

                          M1 7BD

                          (Ref: )


                          Solicitor for the Claimant Second Defendant

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

                            Above is the order Blemain want me consent to. They have de-barred my OH from proceedings....because according to them he was not actively involved in defending the proceedings....yet they still want him to sign the consent order.

                            I have been making regular contractual payments since Jan 12 plus £30 on top towards the arrears. I have also found my self a job...as a Care Worker...and can prove that I am able to afford the loan even on my own....but Blemain want a full I & E Form....to see what I can afford.

                            They have changed solicitors 3 times since issuing possession proceedings...and all I can see is that they want to build up their costs....I do not want to sign a possession order and cannot see any reason for this....yes there was a long period I did not pay....but they were fully aware why that was and still do. Now that I can demonstrate that I am able to pay and have been nearly a whole year without a missed payment....they still are not agreeing to my proposal.

                            Well I am going to see what they reply to my recent letter and then take it from there...all I can see is that the judge will not be happy with them considering how far and long it has taken for me to try and reach a settlement with these swines.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

                              Under CPR rules the solicitors cannot refuse to advise you what the payment is of the arrears amount to. Also, as sure as eggs are eggs I bet you have loads of charges and bet they are lumping that together with the outstanding mortgage payments. You could send an SAR to Blemain and that might also reveal if you have PPI which was mis sold to you incorporated in you repayments.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

                                Thanks Tuttsi.....there are as many of you a lot of things Blemain are doing like swift which is a crime in itself. As for charges....they have added approx £2,500 and I bet more since they sent me their breakdown. I have asked for a full breakdown of their sols costs...as I am sure they have been charging me for everytime they instruct a new sol to play catch up with the case.

                                Also when it comes to costs...they have not followed pre-action protocol...and I will add what they did not do as I go along. I will post up the last correspondence from Cobbetts in a bit.

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                                Working...
                                X